I have a rough idea of their efficiency as I've used them, not in professional settings but I wager it would not be too different. My point is more that it feels like the rugs are finally starting to get pulled. This tech is functionnal as you said, it works to a point and that point is enough for a sizeable amount of people. But I doubt that the price most people are paying now is enough to cover the cost of answering their queries. Now that some people, especially younger devs or people who never worked without those tools are dependant on it, they can go ahead and charge more. But it's not too late, so I'm hoping it will make some people more aware of that kind of scheme and that they will stop feeding the AI hype in general.

It is interesting that you are not answering my point... Good work

The important thing is that the doomsday device runs Linux

The result now is that no website will load because the rest of the world will have broadband anyway

You're using a messaging app that was built with the express intent of being private and encrypted. Yes. You're asking why you can't have a right to privacy when you use your real name as your display handle in order to hide your phone number. I didn't ask anything. I stated it definitively. If you then use personal details as your screen name, you can't get mad at the app for not hiding your personal details. I've already explained this. I am not mad. I am telling you why it's a bad product for activism. Chatting with your friends and clients isn't what this app is for. That's...exactly what it's for. And I don't know where you got the idea that it's not. It's absurd. Certainly Snowden never said anything of the sort. Signal themselves never said anything of the sort. There are other apps for that. Of course there are. They're varying degrees of not private, secure, or easy to use.

California is not Colorado nor is it federal No shit, did you even read my comment? Regulations already exist in every state that ride share companies operate in, including any state where taxis operate. People are already not supposed to sexually assault their passengers. Will adding another regulation saying they shouldn’t do that, even when one already exists, suddenly stop it from happening? No. Have you even looked at the regulations in Colorado for ride share drivers and companies? I’m guessing not. Here are the ones that were made in 2014: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-40/article-10-1/part-6/section-40-10-1-605/#%3A~%3Atext=§+40-10.1-605.+Operational+Requirements+A+driver+shall+not%2Ca+ride%2C+otherwise+known+as+a+“street+hail”. Here’s just one little but relevant section: Before a person is permitted to act as a driver through use of a transportation network company's digital network, the person shall: Obtain a criminal history record check pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 40-10.1-110 as supplemented by the commission's rules promulgated under section 40-10.1-110 or through a privately administered national criminal history record check, including the national sex offender database; and If a privately administered national criminal history record check is used, provide a copy of the criminal history record check to the transportation network company. A driver shall obtain a criminal history record check in accordance with subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) every five years while serving as a driver. A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: (c) (I) A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: An offense involving fraud, as described in article 5 of title 18, C.R.S.; An offense involving unlawful sexual behavior, as defined in section 16-22-102 (9), C.R.S.; An offense against property, as described in article 4 of title 18, C.R.S.; or A crime of violence, as described in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. A person who has been convicted of a comparable offense to the offenses listed in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) in another state or in the United States shall not serve as a driver. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the criminal history record check for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least five years after the criminal history record check was conducted. A person who has, within the immediately preceding five years, been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony shall not serve as a driver. Before permitting an individual to act as a driver on its digital network, a transportation network company shall obtain and review a driving history research report for the individual. An individual with the following moving violations shall not serve as a driver: More than three moving violations in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver; or A major moving violation in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver, whether committed in this state, another state, or the United States, including vehicular eluding, as described in section 18-9-116.5, C.R.S., reckless driving, as described in section 42-4-1401, C.R.S., and driving under restraint, as described in section 42-2-138, C.R.S. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the driving history research report for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least three years. So all sorts of criminal history, driving record, etc checks have been required since 2014. Colorado were actually the first state in the USA to implement rules like this for ride share companies lol.

'member Aug 6 2024: https://www.ft.com/content/31919b4e-4a5a-4eba-ada7-88d3fec455f8 ;D UK faces resistance from X over taking down disinformation during riots Social media site owner Elon Musk has also been posting jibes at UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer Waiting to see those jibes at Modi... And who could forget in April 11, 2024: https://apnews.com/article/brazil-musk-x-twitter-moraes-bef06c0dbbb8ed87495b1afbb0edf211 What to know about Elon Musk’s ‘free speech’ feud with a Brazilian judge gotta see that feud with Indian judges, nobody asked him to block 8000 accounts, including western media outlets, whatever is he gonna do?